w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
9697 HISTORY
9697/01
Paper 1, maximum raw mark 100
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and candidates, to indicate the requirements of
the examination. It shows the basis on which Examiners were instructed to award marks. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions that took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking began.
All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes must be read in conjunction with the question papers and the report on the
examination.
•
CIE will not enter into discussions or correspondence in connection with these mark schemes.
CIE is publishing the mark schemes for the October/November 2007 question papers for most IGCSE,
GCE Advanced Level and Advanced Subsidiary Level syllabuses and some Ordinary Level
syllabuses.
om
.c
MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2007 question paper
s
er
GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level
Page 2
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Generic mark bands for essay questions
Examiners will assess which Level of Response best reflects most of the answer. An answer will not
be required to demonstrate all of the descriptions in a particular Level to qualify for a Mark Band.
In bands of 3 or 4 marks, examiners will normally award the middle mark/one of the middle marks,
moderating it up or down according to the particular qualities of the answer. In bands of 2 marks,
examiners should award the lower mark if an answer just deserves the band and the higher mark if
the answer clearly deserves the band.
Band
1
Marks
21–25
Levels of Response
The approach will be consistently analytical or explanatory rather than descriptive
or narrative. Essays will be fully relevant. The argument will be structured
coherently and supported by very appropriate factual material and ideas. The
writing will be accurate. At the lower end of the band, there may be some weaker
sections but the overall quality will show that the candidate is in control of the
argument. The best answers must be awarded 25 marks.
2
18–20
Essays will be focused clearly on the demands of the question but there will be
some unevenness. The approach will be mostly analytical or explanatory rather
than descriptive or narrative. The answer will be mostly relevant. Most of the
argument will be structured coherently and supported by largely accurate factual
material. The impression will be that that a good solid answer has been provided.
3
16–17
Essays will reflect a clear understanding of the question and a fair attempt to
provide an argument and factual knowledge to answer it. The approach will
contain analysis or explanation but there may be some heavily descriptive or
narrative passages. The answer will be largely relevant. Essays will achieve a
genuine argument but may lack balance and depth in factual knowledge. Most of
the answer will be structured satisfactorily but some parts may lack full coherence.
4
14–15
Essays will indicate attempts to argue relevantly although often implicitly. The
approach will depend more on some heavily descriptive or narrative passages
than on analysis or explanation, which may be limited to introductions and
conclusions. Factual material, sometimes very full, will be used to impart
information or describe events rather than to address directly the requirements of
the question. The structure of the argument could be more organised more
effectively.
5
11–13
Essays will offer some appropriate elements but there will be little attempt
generally to link factual material to the requirements of the question. The
approach will lack analysis and the quality of the description or narrative, although
sufficiently accurate and relevant to the topic if not the particular question, will not
be linked effectively to the argument. The structure will show weaknesses and
the treatment of topics within the answer will be unbalanced.
6
8–10
Essays will not be properly focused on the requirements of the question. There
may be many unsupported assertions and commentaries that lack sufficient
factual support. The argument may be of limited relevance to the topic and there
may be confusion about the implications of the question.
7
0–7
Essays will be characterised by significant irrelevance or arguments that do not
begin to make significant points. The answers may be largely fragmentary and
incoherent. Marks at the bottom of this Band will be given very rarely because
even the most wayward and fragmentary answers usually make at least a few
valid points.
© UCLES 2007
Page 3
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Section A: The Origins of World War I, 1870–1914
Source-based question: Analysis and Evaluation
Question: ‘Britain‘s attitude to Germany before the outbreak of World War I was unnecessarily
hostile.’ Use Sources A-D to show how far the evidence confirms this statement.
A
B
CONTENT
ANALYSIS
[L2–3]
EVALUATION
[L4–5]
N- Britain
believed in the
balance of
power.
Germany’s
reasonable
claims would
not be
opposed.
N-Britain does
not seek
superiority over
Germany but
favours a
balance of
power.
Germany’s just
rights should
be preserved.
N-An official
report that
probably
reflects
Britain’s public
policy.
YMemorandum
might not
reveal British
policy fully.
Y-German
Chancellor
believed that
Britain and its
allies were
encircling
Germany.
Y-Fears by
Germany of
encirclement.
The Triple
Entente was
dangerous to
Germany.
Y-Writer was
an important
British
politician.
Y-Calm tone of
the writer
contrasts with
the extremism
of the German
politician.
N-Britain
nervous about
losing its naval
power.
N-Written at a
later date.
Might not be
fully accurate
as a record of
the discussion.
© UCLES 2007
CROSSREFERENCE
TO OTHER
PASSAGES
Y-Defence of
British policy is
supported by D
and parts of B.
N-Contradicted
by C and parts
of B.
Y-Supported
by C.
N-Contradicted
by A and D.
Parts of B do
not support
claim.
OTHER (e.g.
Contextual
knowledge)
Y-Broadly
reflects British
policy.
N-Plays down
Britain’s
suspicions of
Germany and
is misleading
on attitudes to
France and
Russia,
Britain’s
partners in the
Triple Entente.
Y-Germany did
fear
encirclement
by the Triple
Entente
powers.
Y-Britain
feared growing
German naval
power: the
naval race.
Britain did
depend on the
sea. Had a
weak army.
Page 4
C
D
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Y-Kaiser
accuses Britain
and its allies of
being
extremely antiGerman.
Germany had
been trapped
and was
encircled.
N-The British
Foreign
Minister warns
Germany but
wishes to
maintain good
relations.
Y-The Entente
powers (Britain
and its allies)
were
warmongers.
Britain had
long-term
animosity to
Germany.
Y-The personal
notes of the
Kaiser.
Therefore
probably
reliable.
Y-The tone is
extreme,
Syllabus
9697
Y-Supported
by part of B.
N-Contradicted
by A, D and
part of B.
Y-Writer was a
very important
British
politician.
Y-Time of
telegram
meant that
writer was
aware of
critical danger.
N-Britain could
not abandon
the guarantee
of Belgian
neutrality.
© UCLES 2007
Y-There were
secret treaties
that
undermined
international
confidence.
N-Fears of
plans for a war
of
extermination
were
unfounded.
N-Might not be
reliable as a
considered
view of
German and
British policies.
N-British
government
wanted good
relations with
Germany and a
resolution of
the current
problem. But
they were
limited to
Britain’s desire
for peace.
Paper
01
N-Germany
was mostly
responsible for
the crisis
caused by
AustroHungarian
policies in
1914.
Y-Supported
by A and part
of B.
N-Contradicted
by D and part
of B.
Y-The British
government,
and Grey in
particular,
wished to avoid
war.
Y-Guarantee of
Belgian
neutrality was
important to
Britain.
Page 5
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Section S: The Origins of World War I, 1870–1914
Britain’s Attitude to Germany Before World War I
1
Source-Based Question
L1 WRITES ABOUT THE HYPOTHESIS, NO USE OF SOURCES
[1–5]
These answers write generally about issues before World War I but will ignore the key issues
in the question, i.e. they will not use the sources as information/evidence to test the given
hypothesis. For example, they will not discuss ‘Britain’s attitude to Germany before World
War I was unnecessarily hostile’ but might make only general points about the causes of the
war. Include in this level answers which use information taken from the sources but only in
providing a summary of views expressed by the writers, rather than for testing the
hypothesis.
L2 USES INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE SOURCES TO CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT
THE HYPOTHESIS
[6–8]
These answers use the sources as information rather than as evidence, i.e. sources are
used at face value only with no evaluation/interpretation in context.
For example, ‘Britain’s attitude to Germany before World War I was unnecessarily hostile.
Source B shows that the German Chancellor accused Britain of encircling Germany with
France and Russia, its allies. Britain was accused of hating Germany. Source C explains
that the Kaiser suspected Britain of making secret anti-German treaties. Britain was seeking
a war that would exterminate Germany, which was being encircled by its enemies. Britain’s
attitude was not peaceful as it took a sneering attitude to the problems that Germany faced.’
L3 USES INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SOURCES TO CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT THE
HYPOTHESIS.
[9–13]
These answers know that testing the hypothesis involves both attempting to confirm and to
disconfirm it. However, sources are used only at face value.
For example, ‘There is evidence for and against the claim that Britain’s attitude to Germany
before World War I was unnecessarily hostile. Source B agrees with the claim because the
German Chancellor was embittered by British policy that would encircle Germany in its
alliance system. The alliances with France and Russia were a direct danger to Germany.
British policy was based on hatred of Germany. Source C agrees with this view. William II
also sees the danger to Germany from a policy of encirclement pursued by Britain. He
interprets Britain’s alliances with France and Russia as being dangerous to his country.
Britain had taken advantage of the problems of Austria-Hungary to weaken Germany. On
the other hand, Source A disagrees with the claim. The civil servant explains that Britain
would support Germany’s just claims, including some expansion of its navy. Britain
recognised the importance of treating Germany as an independent country that was entitled
to defend itself. Source D also challenges the claim. Grey tries to reassure the German
government what Britain sought peace and had no hostile feelings towards Germany. He
shows concern for France, Britain’s ally, but there is no wish to crush Germany. Grey was
anxious to reassure Germany by securing an international agreement that would convince
her that Britain and its allies did not have aggressive policies. The British Minister refers to
the extent of the dangers in July 1914; he was anxious to defuse the situation. Source B
mostly contradicts the claim because Lloyd George emphasised that Britain was seeking
peace with Germany. His aim was to convince the German Chancellor and his government
of Britain’s best intentions as long as Britain’s basic interests at seas were preserved.’
© UCLES 2007
Page 6
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
L4 BY INTERPRETING/EVALUATING SOURCES IN CONTEXT, FINDS EVIDENCE TO
CHALLENGE OR SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS.
[14–16]
These answers are capable of using sources as evidence, i.e. demonstrating their utility in
testing the hypothesis, by interpreting them in their historical context, i.e. not simply
accepting them at face value.
For example, ‘It is more accurate to conclude that Britain’s attitude to Germany before World
War I was not unnecessarily hostile. Source A can be accepted as an accurate version of
British policy at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is an objective account that
underlines the importance to Britain of the balance of power. Source B, although written
later, probably summarises accurately Lloyd George’s views before the war. Although he
was uneasy about German ambitions, there is no evidence in the Source that Britain was
unnecessarily hostile to Germany. The German Chancellor, not Lloyd George, is seen as
extreme in his reaction. This might be a personal view but there is no reason to believe that
the description of Bethmann Hollweg is invented. Grey’s telegram is reliable as an account
of the importance to Britain of defending Belgian neutrality, which was not unnecessarily
hostile. He was an important minister and was careful to represent British policies accurately
at that moment of crisis. In July 1914, the British government was still anxious to preserve
good relations with Germany, which reinforces the reliability of Source D.’
L5 BY INTERPRETING AND EVALUATING SOURCES IN CONTEXT, FIND EVIDENCE TO
CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS.
[17–21]
These answers know that testing the hypothesis involves attempting both to confirm and
disconfirm the hypothesis, and are capable of using sources as evidence to do this (i.e. both
confirmation and disconfirmation are done at this level).
For example, (L4 plus) ‘...However, the Sources can also be interpreted to show that Britain’s
attitude to Germany before World War I was unnecessarily hostile. Source A might seem
moderate but does not explain what is meant by Germany’s reasonable rights. Source B is
written from a British point of view. Source C is extreme in its tone but conveys the unease
of many German politicians about British policy. Suspicions about the secret treaties that
had been agreed did indeed create unease in Germany.’
© UCLES 2007
Page 7
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
L6 AS L5, PLUS EITHER (a) EXPLAIN WHY EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE/SUPPORT IS
BETTER/PREFERRED, OR (b) RECONCILES/EXPLAINS PROBLEMS IN THE EVIDENCE
TO SHOW THAT NEITHER CHALLENGE NOR SUPPORT IS TO BE PREFERRED. [22–25]
For (a), the argument must be that the evidence for challenging or supporting the claim is
more justified. This must involve a comparative judgement, i.e. not just why some evidence
is better, but why some evidence is worse.
For example, ‘Although there is evidence in the Sources both to challenge and support the
claim that Britain’s attitude to Germany before World War I was unnecessarily hostile, most
of the evidence in the extracts challenge the claim. Source D is the strongest evidence that
Britain wanted to avoid war in 1914. It is supported by Source A, which looks at longer term
policies. Source B also supports Source D and accurately reflects Britain’s concerns about
sea power but there is no reason to interpret the extract as showing unnecessary hostility to
Germany. On the other hand, Source D has little value as a comment on British policy.
Whilst it represents the personal views of the Kaiser, its tone is extreme. It misrepresents
the relations between Germany and Austria-Hungary, especially in 1914. Britain did not plan
a war of extermination against Germany. In July 1914, Britain was not feeling triumphant at
the turn of events. In Source B, Bethmann Hollweg is seen as more extreme in his reaction
than Lloyd George.
The Sources that would claim that British policy was unnecessarily hostile are less reliable.
Source C is the least reliable of the extracts. It shows an extreme and unreasonable reaction
by the Kaiser. Although he was not fully in control of German policy because of the influence
of the other military and political leaders, he was very influential. British policy is distorted, for
example the reference to a wish for a war of extermination. German support for AustriaHungary, especially in the July crisis of 1914, increased rather than diminished tensions.
Austria-Hungary would probably not have taken such a strong stance against Serbia without
German support and encouragement. William II’s description of Germany as being helpless
against Britain’s plots is unfounded. Source B shows the reaction of Bethmann Hollweg to
have been exaggerated. Its tone and his words show that he exaggerated the danger to
Germany.’
For (b) include all L5 answers which use the evidence to modify the hypothesis (rather than
simply seeking to support/contradict) in order to improve it.
For example, ‘An alternative hypothesis is that British policy was insufficiently clear. In
particular, Source D does not specify what Britain would do if war broke out on the continent.
The Sources can also be used to claim that Germany was unnecessarily hostile to Britain.
This judgement is confirmed in Source B and especially Source D. British policy certainly
became more hostile to Germany from about 1900 to 1914 but it was largely a reaction to
fears of German expansionism. The Sources omit several issues that were important to
British-German relations, for example Germany’s attempt to undermine Britain’s imperial
position in Africa or denials of the naval race. In 1914, Belgian neutrality was crucial to
Britain, probably more important than events in Serbia. The German invasion of Belgium put
Britain in an impossible situation.’
© UCLES 2007
Page 8
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Section B
2
Why, during the period 1789 to 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte more successful than
earlier French leaders in maintaining himself in power within France?
The key issue is Napoleon’s success in maintaining himself in power within France when
compared with other revolutionary leaders. The comparative nature of the question means that
examiners will look for a reasonable balance between Napoleon and the other regimes for the
higher marks. Perhaps 60:40 might be seen as necessary for marks of 18–25 although as
always, the awarded mark will depend mostly on the overall quality of the arguments. A problem
might be answers that deal only with Napoleon, with only some vague and extremely occasional
mentions of other regimes. These might best fit marks up to Band 3 (maximum of 17 marks).
Candidates should focus on developments within France but the effects of foreign policy will be
relevant. The pressures of foreign wars helped to bring about the end of Louis XVI’s monarchy
whilst Napoleon’s success added to his popularity and therefore his power in France. But the
question does not need narratives of foreign exploits. Louis XVI’s monarchy (1789–92/93) was
discredited by his reluctance to accept the Declaration of Rights and the Civil Constitution of the
Clergy and the flight to Varennes proved a fatal error. Robespierre and the Jacobins enjoyed a
brief period of power (1793–94) but their radicalism quickly alienated many. The Thermidorean
Reaction produced a very difficulty character of regime in the Directory. The Directors enjoyed
little support among the civil population and depended increasingly on the army, including
Napoleon. They failed to solve some of the basic problems if France, including the economic and
financial weaknesses. They were personally unpopular and accused of corruption. Napoleon
proved a strong contrast. He claimed to be the heir of the Revolution, gaining popularity among
those who wished to defend the changes since 1789, but he also provided the stability that
reassured more conservative groups. His domestic reforms, for example the Code, the
Concordat and changes to the machinery of government, enhanced his personal position whilst
giving the appearance of rule in the interests of the people. He tried to reconcile the interests of
different groups; in reality, it favoured most the more influential social and economic classes.
3
Why did Britain undergo an Industrial Revolution earlier than France and Germany?
The key issue is the reasons for the different progress to industrialisation of Britain, France and
Germany. The Question asks ‘Why..?’ and the answers in the two highest bands can be
expected to be mostly analytical or explanatory. However, examiners should not undervalue
answers that use description to underline explanation. Three countries are mentioned in the
Question but examiners will not look for three equal parts. It will be reasonable for candidates to
spend most time on Britain. Answers in Bands 1 and 2 should be able to deal with both France
and Germany, but possibly not to an equal extent. Sequential answers should not be
undervalued. The question is based on a comparison but some sequential answers can still
make effective points of comparison. Band 5 will require an adequate understanding of one
country, very probably Britain. Britain had a larger investment base than France and Germany.
The middle class was relatively wealthy and some nobles were willing to invest in industry or in
developments, such as railways, that were linked to industry. Until 1832, government was
dominated by nobles and large landowners but, after the 1832 Reform Act governments had to
give more weight to the interests of the middle classes. The British political and social structure
was more stable than France and Germany. Eighteenth-century France saw the middle classes
subservient to the aristocracy. Governments directed economic enterprise but with little success.
After the uncertainty of the revolutionary years, Napoleon attempted to revive the economy,
including industrial enterprises, with some success but the costs of the wars had severe effects.
Post-Napoleonic governments were interested in industry to different extents but their instability
held up progress until\ the Third Republic was established. Germany was not united until 1871.
Before then, some states, such as Prussia, advanced industrially and the Zollverein was
influential. However, progress was more limited than in Britain until after unification. Britain’s
island situation gave opportunities for overseas trade both imports and exports. France had long
sea boundaries but did not exploit overseas trade as successfully.
© UCLES 2007
Page 9
4
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Assess the claim that the assistance of foreign powers was the most important reason
why Italy became unified during the period from 1848 to 1871.
The key issue is the assessment of the role of foreign powers in Italian unification. Candidates
can argue that other factors were more important than the assistance of foreign powers, for
example the emergence of Piedmont as Italy’s leading province, but the stated factor should
normally be given some attention for Band 5 (11–13 marks). Among the foreign powers that
played a role, the most important was France. (It can also be pointed out that France impeded
steps towards the integration of Rome in 1848–49 and at the end of the specified period.)
Napoleon III’s support for Piedmont and Plombieres (1858) proved to be a turning point although
he withdrew after the battle of Solferino. Piedmont gained Lombardy, the first major step towards
the unification of the peninsula. It had gained vital assistance from a powerful foreign army
against Austria. It can be argued that Venetia was acquired (1866) as an indirect result of the
Austro-Prussian war whilst Rome was integrated as a result of Napoleon III’s defeat by
Bismarck’s Prussia. Britain’s policy and contribution represented benevolent neutrality.
Alternative explanations might include the contributions of the three great Italian leaders, Cavour,
Garibaldi and Mazzini. Their aims and methods varied but, to different degrees, each was
important. For example, Cavour reorganised the government and economy of Piedmont; he
made the cause of Italy respectable among other powers. He arranged plebiscites in the central
states. Garibaldi’s march on the south and moves from Sicily to Rome added another dimension.
Mazzini can be seen as the inspiration for much of the movement although his vision of a
republican Italy did not come to fruition.
5
‘The most important effect of the “new imperialism” on Europe was to increase tensions
between governments.’ How far do you agree with this claim?
The key issue is the most important effects of New Imperialism on Europe. There is not a clear
distinction between causes and effects but the thrust of answers should be on the latter. For
example, empire was seen as necessary to preserve a country’s international status; it was also
an effect. For example, Britain was seen as great partly because of its empire. Candidates can
agree or disagree that the most important effect was to increase international tension.
Candidates can argue that other consequences were more important, but the stated factor should
normally be given some attention for Band 5 (11–13 marks). Bismarck called the Berlin
Conference (1884–85) to resolve disputes in Africa, especially between Britain and Germany.
Such diplomacy failed and British-German rivalry continued to be at the heart of imperialism.
There were also tensions between Britain and France, for example Fashoda (1898). Imperial
holdings provided military bases and manpower. Other effects that can be assessed include
economic consequences although the economic gains of the new empires can be exaggerated.
Some might point to a heightened awareness of other cultures, giving rise to enthusiasm for
religious conversion.
© UCLES 2007
Page 10
6
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
Assess the reasons why the Russian Revolution of October 1917 ended in victory for the
Bolsheviks.
The key issue is the success of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution of 1917. The starting
point of the question is open to candidates.
In explaining the October Revolution, some
candidates might begin with the 1905 Revolution to explain how conditions in Romanov Russia
deteriorated. This will be acceptable but will be prone to the danger that answers represent
general surveys. The effects of war, growing dissatisfaction with an authoritarian government,
and the personal unpopularity of court figures such as the Tsarina and Rasputin might be
explained. The focus of the arguments should be on 1917 and particularly the October
Revolution. Some excellent answers might deal only with the events of 1917, even only with the
events of October. The February Revolution brought down Nicholas II’s government and
monarchy but Kerensky’s government proved incapable of bringing together the disparate
elements in Russia, for example the army, peasants and urban classes. The unsuccessful
continuation of the war discredited his government. The position of Lenin’s Bolsheviks seemed
weak in the summer; Lenin was in exile in Finland, Trotsky and Kamenev were arrested. But a
series of crises changed the situation, above all Kornilov’s attempted coup. The Bolsheviks
adopted the slogan ‘All power to the Soviets’. They dominated the Military Revolutionary Council.
The Winter Palace was seized and Kerensky’s government crumbled. The Bolsheviks
abandoned their promise of a coalition government and Lenin’s party gained control. The
reasons therefore might be seen as a combination of weakness by Kerensky’s government, the
threat of counter-revolution and the ability to Lenin to take advantage of the weakness of rival
groups.
7
How far can Mussolini’s rule in Italy from 1922 to 1939 be described as a ‘totalitarian’
regime?
The key issue is an assessment of the claim that Mussolini’s government of Italy was totalitarian.
Candidates should be given credit when they specifically define or explain the term ‘totalitarian’
but it should be possible for answers to reach Band 1 (21–25) when they do not but show a clear,
if implicit, understanding of its meaning. Totalitarianism involved the control of a populace
through a single party, the leadership of a single person, suppression of the opposition and an
end to individual rights. It was associated with the use of force and terror to suppress dissidents.
Mussolini came to power in 1922 at the head of a coalition but was a dictator by 1925. The
political opposition was banned, as were trade unions. The press was controlled. Local officials
were nominated by the fascists, not freely elected. The use of violence can be linked to the
murder of Matteotti (1924), a leading socialist. However, Mussolini’s regime did not use the
extreme measures of terror that were common in Germany and Russia. For example, the Jews
were not treated severely by 1939. The police were active in seeking out open dissidents but
private criticism was still possible. ‘How far’ invites candidates to consider the limitations of
totalitarianism in Italy. There should be some evidence of this in Band 1 answers. For example,
candidates might contrast Mussolini’s rule with the extent of terror and suppression in Germany
or Russia/USSR. He had to accept the continued influence of groups such as the army, Catholic
authorities (Lateran Treaties of 1929), the monarchy and powerful economic classes.
© UCLES 2007
Page 11
8
Mark Scheme
GCE A/AS LEVEL – October/November 2007
Syllabus
9697
Paper
01
How far do you agree that, up to 1939, Stalin carried out more extensive social and
economic changes in Russia than the Romanov tsars?
The key issue is the comparison of social and economic changes under Stalin and the
Romanovs. Many answers might be constructed sequentially. This approach is possible but
might make it difficult for answers to reach Band 1 (21–25) because it might put less emphasis on
the comparative element. However, a sequential answer with strong comparative points might
make this Band. There should be a reasonable balance between the two periods. 60:40 either
way might merit any Band. Band 5 (11–13) will require an adequate understanding of one period.
To support the claim in the question, it might be argued that the suppression of the kulaks
destroyed an entire social class. Economic changes, for example the Five Year Plans (1928–32,
1933–37 and 1938–42), saw an emphasis on industrial production. Heavy industry and its
necessary components were the priority. A contrary case might be argued that the Romanovs
were responsible for the emancipation of the serfs (Alexander II 1861). He also introduced
reforms in education and local administration that were ultimately to have great effects although
their immediate results were limited. In the late nineteenth century and at the beginning of the
twentieth century, the reforms of Witte and Stolypin were influential. Production increased.
Railways spread. Investment from abroad boomed. Stolypin reformed agriculture and introduced
changes in educational provision. It can therefore be argued that the Romanovs did more to
change the basis of Russian society and the economy.
© UCLES 2007